Clark, list:
“Your statement is absolutely unhistoric. To explain what I mean by this term, I will ask you one question: What is the Greek word for religion?” c.f. 50:25 - 54:10 in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KQ_U9Nt3YE Leo Strauss: Jerusalem and Athens (1/2: 'Agreement') Hth, Jerry Rhee On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 2:24 PM, Clark Goble <cl...@lextek.com> wrote: > > On Oct 27, 2016, at 10:29 AM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote: > > I guess that the question whether there is God or not leads to the > assumtion that there is God: Given that there is no God, everything has > evolved by itself, but this self-creation requires a mechanism, which is > intelligent, i.e. may be called "person", and the term "self" too implies a > person, so what more do we need to assume a personal God? But the problem > whith the assumption of nothing is, that if at the beginning there was > nothing, then either there was not only nothing, but nothing and God, or > the nothing has the capability to evolve into something, but then there was > not nothing alone, but nothing and its capability, which may be called God. > So, either way you look at it, a sole nothing at the beginning is not > possible. So, if we want to stick with a beginning, this beginning state > cannot be nothing, but eg. Tohu Va Bohu, which in the german edition of the > bible is falsely translated with "oed und leer" (barren and empty), but > more likely means some creative chaos. But why should, at any time, there > have been only this Tohu Va Bohu, and not only at some places, while at > other places something regular has yet evolved? I do not see a necessity to > suggest a temporally singular beginning everywhere. And why should God have > started with nothing? That would mean, that He has a curriculum vitae, > finished His apprenticeship and works on His journeyman piece of art. But > if God has a currivulum vitae, he has a vita, a life, is mortal, and not > God. So I guess, that there is no beginning, and no nothing. But Tohu Va > Bohu ok. My mother has detected it in my room when I was young. That is > where I know the term from. > > > I think the issue is that the Greek philosophers abstracted their religion > and more or less moved Zeus to either be the ground of being or being > itself. You had that big allegorizing move towards the earlier myths. Then > when Judaism becomes more monotheistic primarily during the exile there are > moves to adopt a lot of the more Greek notions. Especially during the > Hellenistic conquest of Palestine after the exile. With Christianity you > have this merging of the Greek absolutist ideas of God as being with the > Christian more traditional use of more personal theistic God. By the period > of the end of pagan neoplatonism the ideas have merged in the doctrine of > the Trinity - especially in the platonic twist given it by Augustine. > > It’s worth asking whether this makes sense. There are always moves away > from the more theistic conception towards the more Greek conception. > Especially in mysticism. But you see it a lot at the end of the 19th > century when strains of Hegelianism tend to dominate religious > intellectuals. It’s God as being that gets the focus rather than > Christology except as a symbol or icon of abstract ideas like ‘love.’ The > countermove is of course going on at the same time and in the US comes to > dominate. > > The interesting rethink is to take the absolutist notions but reject the > more static framework they’re found in. So you see this with Whitehead in > the pre-war era and then the rise of process theology in the post-war era. > In this scheme God has a life, albeit not a human one. Instead of being > absolutely impassible he becomes the other extreme of most passaible and > most related. > > A lot of the “but that’s not what God means” really are adopting these > earlier Greek religious innovations as the only way to think of God. But > even historically in the western tradition there’s a lot more variety at > play. > > > > > ----------------------------- > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L > but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the > BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
